Arthur,
At 09:31 26/09/00 -0400, you wrote:
>The debate over high fuel prices doesn't give one much confidence on how we
>will deal with
>a. future shortages, as we really begin to run down reserves
>b. cutting back to deal with global warming.
>
>As Keith said, some sort of rationing will be necessary. How in a
>consumerist democracy will this come about? What politician will commit
>political suicide to trade off present pleasure for future gains, except in
>times of national emergency? And if its a true national emergency, won't it
>indicate that we have left things go to far?
You ask: 'How in a consumerist democracy will this come about?' Quite
simply, the answer lies in a fundamental change in our political system.
Our present type of party system developed historically when there were
relatively few serious issues at any one time. And for each one of these
issues there was usually a clear Yes or No involved. A good example from
English history is the issue of the Corn Laws (protective tariffs against
cheaper grain for the working man). According to their interests, everybody
lined up unambiguously on one side or the other. So, in most developed
countries we arrived at a fairly simple adversarial situation with usually
two main parties, even in those countries with proportional voting. The
result of this is that, because we now have a multitide of complex modern
problems, the elections manifestos of each of the main parties has a huge
plank of policies which is hoped to be popular with nary a policy which
might bring bad news.
But the electorate is quite capable of deciding on difficult issues if the
relevant information is presented to them. For example, in one US State
(I've forgotten which), the public were able to decide on an extremely
difficult problem: the prioritisation of different types of hospital
treatment in the public health services. In England, the issue of
prioritisation usually occurs behind closed doors by "experts". The result?
Repeated controversies and huge disparities in treatment between one part
of the country and another.
As mentioned before, every single thoughtful motorist in England knows full
well that we can't keep on building roads for ever unless we want to detroy
the countryside completely, that the petrol/diesel-driven car/lorry is
enormously polluting, that new forms of transportation must be developed in
the next decade or two, and so on and so on. Yet every time a government of
whatever political party tries to suggest one remedy or another, such as
high fuel taxes, toll roads, etc, etc. it meets with a storm of protest
which paralyses legislation.
When will politicians learn that the way to answer this and other similar
problems is to lay out all the information that's potentially available in
order to stimulate real public discussion, and then to call a referendum as
to the various alternative solutions that have emerged? This is the true
form of democracy in the modern complex age.
But no! Present-day politicians (with complacent civil services quietly
supporting them) do not want to jettison their present comfortable
institutions, perks and jobs, such as our dinosauric House of Commons (and,
for a considerable number of MPs during the summer, foreign "study" trips
to exotic places).
Yes, the answer is quite simple: we need new types of specialised forums,
with subsequent referenda on issues, not elections of parties which seek to
be popular with every item on their agendas. Unfortunately, human
institutions take generations to adapt to new conditions and I fear it will
be the same in modern times -- issues will be decided by crises and rather
crude outbursts by the public instead of by informed debate. In the case of
fuel tax protests in England, Wales and Scotland a couple of weeks ago, the
whole country came to within a day of grinding completely to a halt except
for emergency services. In the case of Mad Cow Disease, information was
smothered for several years by the civil services and politicians, and
nothing was done until people actually started dying in the most
distressing way it is possible to imagine.
Keith Hudson
>
>Arthur Cordell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: September 25, 2000 4:27 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Price or policy?
>
>
>Keith Hudson wrote:
>> The main problem (at least in the UK) is that no-one has an accurate idea
>> of what are the costs of different transport and energy systems.
>
>This is an excuse for continuing to do nothing. What *is* known is that
>the costs of the *present* transport and energy systems (fossil fuels)
>are MUCH HIGHER than what consumers are paying for fuels today. Adjust
>the fuel prices to the actual costs (environmental, public health and
>infrastructure damages) *first*, and then talk about the costs of
>alternatives.
>
>Anyway, due to the catastrophic effects of CO2 on the global climate,
>phasing out fossil fuels would be necessary even *before* the last
>reserves are consumed.
>
>In this context it is terribly ironic that Mr. "Earth in the Balance"
>(Al Gore) is advocating to deplete the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
>in order to lower oil prices.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
